QOL-05. E-SURVEY OF CURRENT INTERNATIONAL PHYSIOTHERAPY PRACTICE FOR CHILDREN WITH ATAXIA FOLLOWING SURGICAL RESECTION OF POSTERIOR FOSSA TUMOUR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To determine current international practice regarding physiotherapy input for children with posterior fossa tumours. An e-survey primarily composed of closed questions covering the following domains; participant demographics, treatment and intervention, virtual training, intensity/timing of treatment, aims and outcomes of physiotherapy was piloted and refined. It was distributed internationally to physiotherapists via 6 key groups; (Paediatric Oncology Physiotherapy Network (POPs), Association of Paediatric Chartered Physiotherapists (APCP), European Paediatric Neurology Society (EPNS), International Society of Paediatric Oncology (SIOP)-Europe Brain Tumour Group, Posterior fossa society (PFS), Pediatric Oncology Special Interest Group (American Physical Therapy Association). Data were analysed descriptively. 84 physiotherapists participated: UK (n=53), rest of Europe (n=22), USA/Canada (n=9). The most common physiotherapy interventions used were balance exercises, proximal control activities, gait re-education, and task specific training. The most frequently used adjuncts to treatment were mobility aids and orthotics. A lack of clinical guidelines and research evidence in this area was highlighted. Frequent challenges raised regarding physiotherapy treatment in this area were; reduced availability of physiotherapy input following discharge from the acute setting, lack of evidence, impact of adjuvant treatment (e.g. chemotherapy/radiotherapy), and psychosocial impact. This e-survey provides an initial scoping review of international physiotherapy practice in this area. It demonstrates the wide range of intervention types used and highlights the lack of clinical evidence in this area. The results raise the need for further research in this field to help with the development of physiotherapy guidelines in children with posterior fossa tumours.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".